Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1305 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-09-26

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 29.3.2007, 24.2.2011 and 25.3.2011, Annexures P10, P19 and P20, respectively, passed by the respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders, whereby the request of the petitioner for grant of P.B. Arms licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, was rejected. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that father of the petitioner was an exserviceman and he was holding a P.B. Arms licence No.301/C/Dec. for .38 bore revolver, originally issued by the office of District Magistrate, Kaithal, w.e.f. 5.1.1976. He was keeping a .38 bore revolver No.655581 for his personal use, safety and security. The licence used to be renewed regularly by the competent authority. Father of the petitioner died on 28.11.2003. The arms licence was in the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner deposited the weapon with the prescribed authority, i.e. Kurukshetra Armoury, Arms & Ammunition Dealers 3, Railway Road Kurukshetra vide receipt dated 29.11.2003 (Annexure P3). After undergoing the requisite training and claiming himself to have become entitled and eligible for grant of P.B. Arm licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, petitioner applied to the competent authority. However, his request was turned down vide impugned order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P10). Petitioner made repeated representations on which the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra, recommended the request of the petitioner for its sympathetic consideration vide communication dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure P14). However, respondent No.4 again rejected the request of the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P19) observing that after reconsideration of the matter, petitioner was not found entitled for grant of P.B. Arm licence of .38 bore revolver under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P–19) was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.1 by way of impugned communication dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P20). Hence, this writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, separate written statements were filed, one on behalf of respondent No.1 and another on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, respondent No.4 filed its short reply by way of an affidavit. Petitioner filed his replication to the reply filed by respondent No.4. Hence, this writ petition. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, separate written statements were filed, one on behalf of respondent No.1 and another on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, respondent No.4 filed its short reply by way of an affidavit. Petitioner filed his replication to the reply filed by respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has been taking totally different stands at different points of time, which is clear from a bare perusal of the impugned orders and stand taken in the reply filed to this writ petition. He further submits that for granting arms licence in question under the policy, no report from the intelligence bureau, as such, was required. He next contended that respondent No.4 has proceeded on wholly misconceived and perverse approach only with a view to deny the rightful claim of the petitioner, taking different stands at different times. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the authorities were justified in denying the request of the petitioner, in view of the specific stand taken in paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit dated 6.1.2012. He further submits that there was no malafide alleged by the petitioner against any of the officer of the respondent department. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after going through the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the give fact situation of the present case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter. The facts of the case noted in the foregoing paragraphs have never been in dispute at any point of time. The initial impugned order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P10) was passed saying that under the present policy of Government of India, it was not possible to accept the request of the petitioner. The facts of the case noted in the foregoing paragraphs have never been in dispute at any point of time. The initial impugned order dated 29.3.2007 (Annexure P10) was passed saying that under the present policy of Government of India, it was not possible to accept the request of the petitioner. Since, order is totally nonspeaking and cryptic one, it would be appropriate to reproduce the same, which reads as under: “I have been directed to invite your attention towards state government letter No.5/539/054 HG III dated 13 March, 2006 on the above subject that the request of Sh.Darshan Singh was carefully considered in the ministry. It is regretted that under the present policy of Government of India, it is not possible to accept his request. The applicant may be informed accordingly.” Thereafter, no action was taken on repeated requests having been made by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was recommended by the District Magistrate, Kurukshetra for sympathetic consideration. It is also not the case of respondent No.4 that as per the policy, i.e. Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, recommendations from the District Magistrate, State Government and the State Police were not available. Further, under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, which has been appended with the written statement of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, it is nowhere provided that over and above the report/recommendations made by the District Magistrate, State Government and the State Police, report from the intelligence bureau was also required. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.4 could not point out any such requirement under the Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, under which the petitioner was pursuing his remedy for transfer of the weapon in question. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondent No.4 proceeded on a wholly misconceived approach, while passing the impugned orders and the same cannot be sustained. However, respondent No.4 has tried to make out an entirely new case against the petitioner in its short reply by way of affidavit dated 6.1.2012. There was not even a passing reference about the stand taken in paras 5 and 6 of the reply, at the time of passing of the impugned orders. However, respondent No.4 has tried to make out an entirely new case against the petitioner in its short reply by way of affidavit dated 6.1.2012. There was not even a passing reference about the stand taken in paras 5 and 6 of the reply, at the time of passing of the impugned orders. When the petitioner was confronted with the report of intelligence bureau pointed out in paras 5 and 6 of the reply by way of affidavit, petitioner strongly refuted the allegations by filing his replication and also attaching the certificates issued by the Headmaster of the school and Sarpanch of the village. The fact remains that learned counsel for respondent No.4 could not point out as to how respondent No.4 has proceeded beyond its own policy, i.e. Transfer/Family Heirloom policy, while making it a new ground against the petitioner for denying his genuine claim. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that respondent No.4 has failed to appreciate the true factual as well as legal aspect of the matter, while passing the impugned orders and the same cannot be sustained. It is the settled proposition of law that every action passed by any executive authority has to be just and reasonable. In the present case, it has been found that respondent No.4 has been taking different stands at different times. Even during the course of hearing, it could not be pointed out on behalf of respondent No.4 as to how it was possible to reconcile the impugned orders and the stand taken in the short reply by way of affidavit. Thus, action of respondent No.4 has been found to be arbitrary on the face of it and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. No other argument was raised. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that in the given fact situation of the present case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.3.2007, 24.2.2011 and 25.3.2011, Annexures P10, P19 and P20, respectively, passed by respondent No.1 are hereby ordered to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 29.3.2007, 24.2.2011 and 25.3.2011, Annexures P10, P19 and P20, respectively, passed by respondent No.1 are hereby ordered to be set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to reconsider the matter, strictly in accordance with law and observations made hereinabove, without any further loss of time and in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued as hereinabove, the present writ petition stands allowed, however with no order as to costs.